Results of the 2013 Off the Shelf Driver Tests

I've just read the results of the 2013 tests but I won't name the testing organisation as, generally speaking, I have no specific beef against anyone in the industry. Less than a handful of yards separated the top drivers.

As always there then followed an animated forum exchange concerning driver 'X' outhitting driver 'Y' etc. by two yards or so.

I didn't personally witness that test, but have seen a similar influential (to the golfing public) test where five competent golfers each tested one unit of each of the competing products. The theory being that so many testers would iron out any perverse test result.

But does it?

I have attempted to add my own comments, and these await moderation. It's a matter of speculation as to whether or not I pass the censor. So, I re-print my views here - within a forum holding no vested interest:

'Although not endorsing off the shelf drivers - overall poor performance / high price, let's put that aside and look at the test results:

'Unless around twenty of each of the same model were extensively tested the results are meaningless and misleading for the following reasons:

'(1) Distance and accuracy are massively influenced by whether or not each shaft is spine aligned and correctly fitted. Arguably a potentially lesser hitting driver will outhit a potentially dominant driver if it has been better set up. Were the drivers stripped down and properly assembled before testing because off the shelf drivers do not come spine aligned?

'(2) Head lofts are often up to two degrees out either way from their plated loft. Were accurately measured exactly identical loft heads used?

'(3) Some heads and shafts are manufactured better than others even though superficially identical. Hence competitors at the World Longdrive Champs. may have six or eight 'identical' drivers assembled at the Champs. and reject four of them. Only the testing of numerous drivers evens out such inconsistencies.

'In amateur testing like is rarely tested against like, yet as a result of such spurious test results buyers ridiculously speak of one model outhitting another by a couple of yards or so.

'Unless assurances are made on the above vital points what would be a reasonable conclusion?'

My own view, for what it is worth (possibly nothing) is that all of the top of the range off the shelf drivers are fairly much even stevens. In some hands one model will perform better than another, and conversely. Suitability of the shaft is extremely important. One company's extra stiff is often very different to its competitor's extra stiff. Not necessarily better or worse, just different.

Testing golf drivers is not the same as testing Ferraris, where every test driver can potentially achieve 192 m.p.h. 'Best' driver means 'driver most suited to each particular player.' There is thus no universal absolute merit result. No sensible league table, even if numerous identical drivers had been tested.

So the point is? Please treat all such test results with more than a 'pinch of salt.'

All valid if you want such a comparison but I would guess the description of "off the shelf" means just that, anything more is not really a true reflection of what 90% of golfers play with.